Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, reported

The State Of Bihar Patna Priya Kumari W/O- Piyush Kumar Singh @ Piyush Kumar@ Sonu R/O Vill- Kharshan, Ps- Riga, Dist- Sitamarhi, Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP. ORAL ORDER 2 15-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in connection with Complaint Case No. CI-812 of 2022 dated

20.07.2022 registered for the offences punishable u/s 420, 406, 498A, 380, 415, 504, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code & ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

As per the complaint case, the petitioner and the co- accused persons are alleged to have tortured the complainant mentally and physically due to non-fulfillment of demand of a motorcycle as dowry, ultimately she compelled to leave her matrimonial home. It is further alleged that the petitioner had Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2094 of 2024(2) dt.15-02-2024 already married before the marriage with the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. It is the further submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the informant and he has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner neither demanded any dowry nor tortured the complainant. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of "Md. Naimul Haque Ansari @ Naimul Haque Ansari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2006(3) PLJR 182." Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 498A of the IPC is triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgments in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCR 351 and Md. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3433 of 2023. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2094 of 2024(2) dt.15-02-2024 the case as well as the allegation being general and omnibus against the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Sitamarhi in connection with Complaint Case No. CI-812 of 2022, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with further condition:- (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to cancelled.

If so advised, either of the parties will be at liberty to make an application before the Court below for referring the matter to the District Mediation Centre for the purpose of reconciliation or one time settlement.